To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications of decisions taken at the NATO summit on 5 and 6 July.

The purpose of the London summit was to preserve the fundamentals of NATO while adapting the alliance to the new circumstances in Europe and to reassure the Soviet Union that a NATO including a united Germany represented no threat to them. The agreement between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev yesterday confirms this success of the London summit.

Two lines of NATO's press release state

"that there are now circumstances in which nuclear retaliation in response to military action might be discounted."

What is the difference between the new policy and the old policy of flexible response?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the declaration makes a number of references to nuclear weapons. It states that none of the NATO weapons will be used except in self-defence and that we seek the lowest and most stable level of nuclear forces needed to secure the prevention of war. Nuclear weapons will have an essential role in the overall strategy to prevent war in the way in which the hon. Gentleman described. NATO added that the weapons will be

"truly weapons of last resort."

That is a clearer definition of the nuclear strategy and emphasises the point that many Opposition Members still do not appreciate—that nuclear weapons are not for fighting a war, they are to prevent war.

During this period of uncertainty for those in our armed forces, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to stress the nation's sense of gratitude and obligation to them for what they have done and for their contribution to the peace that we are now seeing in prospect? Will he also do everything possible to reassure them that this House will not forget them in their difficulties in the future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I shall certainly seek to do that. My hon. Friend has made an important point. I know that he did not mean this, and I do not say this, as some form of valedictory address. Although the position in central Europe has changed, our situation in needing to ensure a certain basic level of defences against the eventualities that we hope would not arise, but which could arise, mean that our defences will have a continuing and important role and will offer a continuing and important career for those who give their lives and service to them.

If nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort and not for fighting wars, is not the Government's inclination to deploy the tactical air-to-surface missile on behalf of the United States a decision that should be scrapped immediately? Does not it also bring into considerable doubt the need for tactical air-to-surface missiles to be deployed by the NATO alliance?

After the manifest success of the NATO summit, I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to challenge head-on one of the statements of NATO policy, which is that

"the Alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary."

He does so at the very moment when we are celebrating the success of the NATO strategy and on the day after one of the objectives of NATO strategy for 40 years—to seek a united Germany within NATO has been achieved. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should query the unanimous agreement on that strategy.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to make clear the necessity for strong defence in the future not only for short-term foreseeable events but for long-term unforeseeable ones? Does he agree that it would be criminal folly to reduce our defences, including nuclear weapons, to a level lower than any eventuality, however unforeseeable, might demand?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that in saying that, he also recognises that circumstances are changing and that one of the most important aspects is that NATO must adapt. One of the greatest strengths of recent events and one of the values of NATO that was shown yesterday is that after the NATO summit, after the NATO declaration and after the visit of the secretary general to Moscow, President Gorbachev felt confident enough to move because he knew that he was dealing with an alliance which had the strength to deliver.

In view of the Secretary of State's description of the talks as unanimous and successful, does he intend to make a full statement to the House on the implications of the unanimous decisions made and of "Options for Change", or shall we have to wait for a statement to be made during the recess?

No. The House is well aware of the outcome of the NATO summit and the Leader of the Opposition has already made certain comments in the House about it. Indeed, I noticed that in New York the Leader of the Opposition, referring to the changes and the positive outcome of the NATO summit, said that it was a good time to be alive. I am not sure whether that spirit has spread to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in his Department's review of Britain's defence commitments in Europe.

We are considering options for change in the scale and deployment of our armed forces and their supporting structures in the light of the changing international circumstances.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite Mr. Gorbachev's good intentions—and there is no reason to doubt them—The Times was correct to draw attention today to the uncertain nature of Soviet politics and on another occasion to the fluid situation in eastern Europe? Against that background, does he agree that any defence cuts should be gradual and should take into account long-term rather than short-term political developments?

I certainly agree with the importance of recognising that while much has changed, some elements endure. Our responsibilities in other parts of the world, whether in the Falklands, Belize, Cyprus or Northern Ireland, have not changed in any way. We must continue to recognise those elements and the need to maintain our defences. The one element that I would add to what my hon. Friend said is that it is also important that we work in close partnership with the NATO alliance and consult it about any changes that we might have in mind.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that changing circumstances require changing strategies, particularly in relation to nuclear weapons? If it is now NATO strategy that nuclear weapons should be weapons of last resort, why is it necessary for at least three countries in the alliance to possess them? Why should we not be content—if we can be content at all with nuclear weapons—with one nation, the United States, having sole possession of strategic nuclear weapons?

In the end a Government must take responsibility for the defence of their country. We believe that nuclear weapons have been for this country, as they have for others, the ultimate instrument of war prevention. We believe that nuclear weapons have saved millions and millions of lives. That is the key reason why Europe has just enjoyed the longest period of peace this century. It is against that background that we believe it is sensible to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

Will my right hon. Friend constantly remind the House that whereas the time sequence for developing new nuclear weapons and keeping current nuclear weapons effective is very long, the time sequence in which international political relationships can change is almost immediate? Therefore we must never bring about a situation whereby the Russian military deposing Mr. Gorbachev could leave us defenceless, effectively, against that changed situation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising the need for a certain prudence. No one could have observed the events of the past year without recognising the truth of what he has said. The headlong process of change that has taken place in recent months could alter. Today's announcement, encouraging as it is, might easily have gone the other way and then there could have been a great deal of tension in Europe. If the Soviet military establishment had finally decided that it could not accept a united Germany in NATO, we would face a different situation. The very fact that we believed that in the end the Soviet Union would recognise the rights of the German people to self-determination and to choose to which alliance they belonged is extremely important.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nuclear tests have been carried out by NATO countries and France in the current year; and for what purpose.

The last United Kingdom nuclear test was in December 1989. Such tests are required to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear weapons capability.

The French authorities have announced four and the United States three nuclear tests so far in 1990.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Were those tests carried out in conjunction with tactical air-to-surface missiles? If so, does the Minister condone that, given that the threat has now been considerably reduced, if not removed? Will he also inform the House whether the Government intend to start progress towards a comprehensive worldwide nuclear test ban? That would be a significant step in enhancing the agreement reached yesterday and the decision would be received throughout the world as a progressive move towards further stabilisation.

The Government regard it as essential that we continue to test nuclear weapons so long as we remain a nuclear state, as we intend to do for the foreseeable future. That stand is unlike that of the Opposition, who have made it clear that they see no role for nuclear weapons and will negotiate them away as soon as they ever get into power. In those circumstances, we intend to continue to test nuclear weapons. We do not, of course, go into detail about the form that those tests take.

The Government have made it clear that we do not support the idea of a comprehensive test ban because we regard the testing of nuclear weapons as essential for the future development of our nuclear programme.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that in recent years the Soviet air force has modernised its nuclear air capability and that it would be extremely foolish for us to deny ourselves similar opportunities other than as part of some international agreement?

Yes, that must be right. The Soviet Union will continue to be a highly nuclear-capable country for the foreseeable future. In those circumstances, it would be madness if we did not maintain our capability as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart to discuss weapons development and deployment.

I last met Mr. Cheney at the NATO nuclear planning group and the defence planning committee meetings in May. We discussed a wide range of current defence issues.

Although I might argue from a socialist perspective that imperialist, capitalist treaties and pacts are worthless pieces of paper, can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government are serious about the non-proliferation treaty, or does he support the statement made by his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement who described it as a "worthless piece of paper" on 18 June in the House? Is not that a further example of the Thatcher-Ridley tendency of chauvinistic dislike and hatred for foreigners and all things foreign?

I am not sure what that contribution will do for the cause of the Leader of the Opposition in trying to persuade people in Washington that the Labour party is a very different animal now from that which some of its previous critics may have suggested. The hon. Gentleman's contribution said it all.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that technology in the United States, particularly in military aircraft, has reached an all-time high with the stealth characteristics of those aircraft? Would it be possible for European aviation manufacturers to feature much of that stealth technology in the next generation of European fighter aircraft, and thus benefit from American research?

We seek to co-operate wherever possible in the European programme group on research and development in various collaborative projects and, where applicable, with the United States. Obviously, some of the skills of the United States are of great interest to us.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that American ships will be carrying stocks of nerve gas, in the form of 100,000 artillery projectiles, from Nordenham in Germany through the English channel? The projected time for the movement is mid to late September when there are frequently severe gales in the English channel. When precisely will the movement take place, and what contingency plans does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make in case of a serious accident? The British public have a right to know, or do the Government simply not care?

I will see what information I can give the hon. Gentleman about that.

Regarding contact with United States counterparts on weapons development and deployment, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent that Sir Peter Levene has managed to copy the American system of labelling spares' costs, resulting in a substantial reduction in costs to public funds?

Many of the innovations that Sir Peter Levene has brought to the public procurement process have been of tremendous benefit, and there is no question—this should unite the House, whatever levels of defence expenditure one may approve—but that whatever money is spent should be spent to the best effect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had about the future defence role of Germany.

In recent months I have had discussions on defence aspects of German unification with Dr. Stoltenberg, with other Defence Ministers in NATO, and with Marshal Yazov. The British Government have consistently supported the right of a united Germany to be a full member of the NATO alliance, and we are delighted that Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev have now reached agreement on this crucial point.

Which Tory view is likely to prevail in future consideration of these matters? Will it be the views of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and, presumably, the Prime Minister, or will it be wiser and more moderate counsels? Since the Soviet Union, despite its historic experience, has been able to change its stance towards the defence role of Germany, is not there a danger that only the United Kingdom will be negative and backward-looking?

The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that friendship and partnership are at the heart of British foreign policy and I can tell the House that friendship and partnership with Germany are also at the heart of our defence policy. That could never have been more obvious than during the past more than 40 years when 60,000 to 70,000 British troops and their families have been stationed in Germany. I am deeply grateful for the friendship and warmth of reception that they have had in Germany and for the close collaboration that has existed between us. That has perhaps never been more true than now when, under the vicious terrorist threat that they face, the outstanding co-operation of the German police and security forces has been beyond praise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this extraordinary week, in which President Gorbachev has withdrawn his objections to a united Germany joining NATO, the truth of the matter is that they could not beat us and therefore they are joining us? Does not it follow, therefore, that a united Germany should not be a weak member of NATO, but a strong one capable of playing a full part in the future?

There is absolutely no question but that my hon. Friend is right. Germany is an essential member of NATO. The Soviet Union has properly recognised, as we hoped that it would, that in the final analysis it is a matter for the democratic decision of the German people which alliance they join. Hon. Members will have noticed the phrase used by Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev, that their agreement yesterday recognised the

"full and unrestricted sovereignty of a united Germany."

That has to be right.

Does the Secretary of State agree that yesterday's momentous decision, which we all welcome, has come about because of the persistence and patience of the Federal Republic of Germany and its allies in seeking to do deals with the Soviet Union? The outcome of the negotiations would not have been possible without the long-standing co-operation to which the Secretary of State alluded in respect of Britain and the federal republic. In those circumstances, is not it the more surprising that one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues tried to upset the apple cart with his ill-tempered outburst last week? Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that there is now no one in the Tory Cabinet prepared to talk in terms of German revanchism in the way that his former colleague was prepared to do?

What about the Prime Minister?

There is not much point in covering ground that has already been covered. I have made absolutely clear the importance of our alliance with Germany. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have consistently made clear, on behalf of the Government, the belief that a united Germany should be in NATO and the hope that the people of a united Germany would so choose. It is Chancellor Kohl's clear belief that that is what they will choose after the German elections.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that under any Army reorganisation those county regiments with affiliated Territorial Army battalions bearing the same name will be retained.

It is not yet possible to comment on the future of particular regiments or their organisation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while military mergers are nothing new, it must be logical to encourage those regiments with centuries of local recruiting tradition to continue that tradition? Examples include the 11th Foot, the North Devonshire regiment, now the Devonshire and Dorset regiment, where the local groundswell of support is such that recruiting will continue even in times when it is more difficult than in other parts of the world.

Yes. Clearly, the ability of any regiment to recruit—and the ability of the Devon and Dorsets to get the support that they enjoy in their part of the country—will be taken into account in any reorganisation that we consider.

In considering that matter, will my hon. Friend ensure that he does not overlook the claims of the Household Division or the Gurkhas? This year the brigade of Gurkhas celebrated 175 years of service to the British Crown and in the last war they raised 250,000 troops. If we overlooked them, I am sure that the British public would never forgive us.

I am well aware of the concern and respect that hon. Members have for the Gurkhas and the Household Division. We shall take that into account when we reconsider the shape that the Army should take in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what emphasis his Department places on mobile forces.

As last week's summit declaration made clear, NATO forces will in future need to be highly mobile and versatile. We are currently examining options for change in our force structures to reflect new circumstances.

With reference to mobile forces, is my hon. Friend aware that I strongly support the point made a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) about the role of the Gurkhas? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to say something about developments in NATO's strategy in view of the exciting and reassuring developments in eastern Europe, and about the possibility of a NATO role out of area?

Yes, indeed. One of the advantages of the versatility and mobility alluded to is that they will enable the forces to be dual-hatted and play a role out of area as well as a reinforcement role in NATO.

The Minister mentioned versatility and mobility, but was it in order for a Royal Navy helicopter to be deployed at a Tory party event in my constituency, since, as has been admitted by the local Tory party, it was a fund-raising event for the Tories? Is that the new role for our military helicopters—to be used to prop up the Tories' fund-raising effort to try to win the next general election?

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. I think the question was about mobile forces.

In as much as the supplementary question refers to mobility, I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. As he well knows, that occasion was not laid on solely for the benefit of the Tory party. Serious sums of money were raised for other charities—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must listen to the Minister's reply.

Serious sums of money were raised for other charities, but if it had been known that it was a Tory event, the contribution from the Royal Navy would not have been made.

When my hon. Friend has recovered from that formidable onslaught, will he give his attention to the role of the Territorial Army in the mobile forces and say whether in the light of developments, he believes that in future reservists and Territorial Army personnel will be able to play an even larger part in our mobile and specialist forces?

The Territorials and the reserves will certainly have an important role in terms of reinforcement of our role in NATO. We are considering that carefully under "Options for Change".

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of his Department with regard to low-level military flying over the Isle of Man.

Much of the Isle of Man falls within controlled airspace associated with Ronaldsway airport. Military aircraft do not generally carry out flying training at low level over the remainder of the island, although the RAF makes extensive use of the air weapons range off Jurby Head.

I am grateful for that answer, but does the Minister accept that if having civilian air traffic over Ronaldsway airport is good cause for not having low-level military flying, that must also be a relevant consideration in low-level flying over my islands constituency, where the two important airports, at Kirkwall and Sumburgh, deal with not only a large amount of civilian inter-island traffic but with helicopter traffic from the North sea oil platforms? If this has been a relevant consideration in not allowing low flying over the Isle of Man, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision to increase low-level flying over Orkney and Shetland in recent years?

Ronaldsway airport was a factor in the consideration but it was not, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to suggest, the only one. He knows that each case is considered on its merits.—I am sure that the people of Orkney and Shetland want to make their contribution to the defence of these islands. The Isle of Man does so by contributing the range for low-level flying, and other ranges—for example, RAF Tain—are equal contributors. The hon. Gentleman might have a word about that with his hon. Friend President Kennedy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the Isle of Man or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, low-flying sorties, if they are to mean anything, have to be about 300 miles long so that pilots and navigators can undertake the necessary training to be able to operate in wartime conditions wherever they occur?

My hon. Friend understands these matters much better than does the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is true that the average sortie takes at least 300 to 500 miles, and it must encompass that distance to be worthwhile practice. It is our intention, through the United Kingdom low-flying system, to spread low-flying training as fairly and evenly as possible. Avoiding one area puts an unnecessary burden on other areas. [Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to settle down; a lot of background conversation is going on.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications of decisions taken at the NATO summit on 5 and 6 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).

Now that it is alleged that our nuclear weapons are for use only as a last resort, are there any plans for doing away with our short-range nuclear weapons—I am talking about artillery and Lance—or am I being naive?

The hon. Gentleman would have done better to read the London declaration before he came to the House because it contains a specific proposal on nuclear artillery.

Now that the NATO alliance has unambiguously extended the hand of friendship to the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union, which leads it, will my right hon. Friend, in concert with the Foreign Secretary, see whether pressure can now be put on the Soviet Union to withdraw its remaining troops from Poland?

Certainly we wish to see the withdrawal of Soviet forces as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will know that Chancellor Kohl accepted that it will probably be three to four years before those troops can be withdrawn from East Germany. One should not underestimate the sheer logistical problems of withdrawal of the numbers involved, but we want it to happen as soon as possible. We should welcome the real progress that has been made.

Were the decisions taken at the NATO summit consistent with the decision taken yesterday in Moscow? If so, do the Government support the restriction on the size of German forces following a united Germany?

Not only were they consistent, but the very tone of the London summit was intended to make clear to the Soviet Union that a united Germany in NATO presented no threat to the Soviet Union. The success of that summit is borne out by yesterday's events, which have given President Gorbachev the confidence to proceed as he has, some might say courageously, to accept against the background of his domestic position the important step forward of a united Germany in NATO. The German proposals for the Bundeswehr and the Volksarmee were well anticipated and we have taken note of them.

À propos my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), does he agree that the real test of Soviet sincerity about the new relationship with the west would be its withdrawal from a country that suffered grievously from both Germans and Russians during the war and that has suffered grievously since? The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Poland would be a great step forward.

I understand my right hon. Friend's feelings and wish to see that withdrawal as soon as possible. We must recognise the most remarkable landmark that emerged yesterday. A few months ago, no one would have thought it possible for the Soviet Union to accept a united Germany in NATO. Three months ago it was almost unthinkable in Moscow and it has now been confirmed. We should welcome that.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that a statement about the Government's reaction to the NATO summit will be made before the House rises for the summer recess? Will the document "Options for Change" be available for debate, or will it simply be published before the end of the Session?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on reaction to the summit in her statement to the House following the G7 summit at Houston. I cannot comment further today on a separate statement about "Options for Change".

If at the London summit the Government had made an immediate announcement to cut defence spendng by over a quarter, what would have been the effect?

That is a rather subtle question of which I would have liked more notice. The London summit showed the importance of the members of the NATO alliance working together. As I said, one factor that must have been important to President Gorbachev was that he was dealing with a united alliance and knew from talking to Chancellor Kohl that the Chancellor's views were consistent with those of the whole of the NATO alliance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions he has made about the role of the Army following a possible conventional forces in Europe agreement.

No decisions have yet been taken regarding the future role of the Army, although we are examining the options for change in the light of changing international circumstances.

In view of the dramatic discussions between East and West Germany and the ultimate withdrawal of Russian troops, does the Minister recognise that there is no longer any justification for the retention of 55,000 British troops in Germany? Can he assure us that the Government will not try to introduce some strategy under which those 55,000 troops will be deployed somewhere else in the world, in a continuation of the imperialism that we used to experience 100 years ago?

"Options for Change" recognises the dramatic alterations in the scene in Europe generally and especially in east-west relations. It will therefore deal with the size of the Rhine Army.

Does my hon. Friend accept that whatever agreement may be reached on conventional forces, the Territorial Army must always be maintained as a back-up to the regular forces? Will he congratulate those who serve in the Territorial Army in my area on the opening last Thursday of the Alexandra barracks by Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra? They will provide magnificent training opportunities for the Territorial Army of the future.

I am glad to hear what great support is being given to the Territorial Army in my hon. Friend's area. It is an invaluable and essential part of our commitment to reinforce NATO at a time of conflict.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received any representations to set up an arms conversion agency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received any representations to set up an arms conversion agency.

This question appears to have been widely syndicated on the Opposition Benches. It is found in three of the top dozen questions. Let us hope that hon. Members have adequately memorised their supplementaries.

The answer is that I have received various representations.

Has the Minister had the temerity to contact the Department of Trade and Industry on the possibility of an arms conversion agency? If so, can he tell us about the nature of those talks and specifically whether he has received reports from the DTI on how manufacturing industry can obtain its share of the peace dividend?

That question has been asked no fewer than seven times, and answered by three Ministers, during the past six months. The question does not alter and nor does the answer. British industry is responsible for determining its product ranges, not the Government.

Does not the Minister's answer show clearly that the Government feel that they have no responsibility to the companies and workers which have supplied the British forces over the years? Is not the Minister happily washing his hands of companies such as Vickers in Leeds? Is not it time that the Government accepted some responsibility for those who have supplied Britain so well for so long?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on some subject or other, and I had hoped that he would produce some enlightenment on the subject. All that he has done is produce the standard socialist formula—convene a committee of friends, throw some public money at the subject and then claim that something is being done about it. In fact, we have no details about the project. We do not know how it is to be constituted, whether it is to be funded from taxation revenue, or whether—as I understand it—it is to be funded by a surcharge on those in arms production. There are no details: it is simply a down-memory lane formula of socialism.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we retain a military complex in our industry that is capable of turning out the necessary minimum weapons to guarantee our security? Is not military aviation such as that at British Aerospace at Walton essential to continue the defence of this country?

Of course, there are certain key capabilities that we shall retain at all times. We shall always continue to need a strong and vigorous defence sector in our manufacturing industry.

Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to read some of the articles commemorating Adam Smith? Did they refresh his natural inclination that if market forces do anything, it is crucial that the Government should not become involved in the issue? The very last thing that we should have is an arms conversion agency.

I entirely agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's proposition, but I am not sure whether all Adam Smith's precepts are entirely applicable to the defence industries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the findings of the "Options for Change" inquiry.

I appreciate the keen interest, particularly in the armed services themselves, in the progress of our work which is proceeding against the background of the changing international situation and similar studies among our allies. I advised the House on 18 June of the essential elements in our study of "Options for Change". I am not yet in a position to go further.

Before publishing those findings, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will have given due weight to a service dividend as well as a peace dividend?

Yes, Sir. I have not used the word "findings" because we hope to come forward with proposals. I hope that there will be an opportunity for wider consultation. Obviously this is an important time for the armed services. We must take account of the interests of the armed services and all those who serve in them as well as those involved in defence generally.

What does my right hon. Friend think of the morality of those who want to spend the peace dividend but refuse the investment in nuclear weapons which makes that dividend possible?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was referring to the Opposition. At this very moment, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to persuade people in Washington that the unilateralist views shared by many Opposition Members do not really exist.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Is the Prime Minister aware that when I read the memorandum from the Chequers seminar and saw the words "angst", "aggressiveness", "assertiveness" and "bullying"—[Interruption.]

Order. Will the hon. Lady proceed with her question please? [Interruption.] Order. These pauses take a lot of time.

—I believed that the Prime Minister was painting a self-portrait. Does she realise that, through her failure to sack the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and her association with that memorandum and the attack on the German people, she is now tarred with the Ridley brush and is no more fit to lead than he was?

No, Mr. Speaker. At one time, I am accused of being isolated and of not consulting anyone; at another time, I am accused of having consultations with those who have something interesting to say. People must make up their minds which they are criticising. The hon. Lady could have read the constructive result in a speech at the Koenigswinter conference some five days later. That constructive speech concerned all our relationships in the Community, particularly with Chancellor Kohl, who shows much more understanding of these matters than does the hon. Lady.

Given the now general acquiescence about the reunification of Germany, does my right hon. Friend agree that the first act of a newly reunified Germany should be the signing of a full and unqualified peace treaty with the former allies? Will she take steps to ensure that that happens?

After unification, I think that Germany and Poland will wish to sign a treaty confirming Poland's existing borders. That will be one of the most important international measures. I do not think that a unified Germany would wish to have a full peace treaty, for obvious reasons. We might have arrangements that lead to a peace settlement.

Is the Prime Minister aware that four of the six academic experts who attended her Chequers seminar on Germany have said that Mr. Charles Powell's minute of that meeting gave a slanted—that is, anti-German—account of the discussion? Does the Prime Minister agree?

No, Mr. Speaker.

The whole House, and people in many places and chanceries throughout the world, will be astonished that the Prime Minister has not taken this opportunity to repudiate the more offensive sections of the minute. Four of the experts at the seminar say that the minute was slanted against the Federal German Republic. Everyone in the world now believes that the Prime Minister's private secretary was reflecting not so much the opinions of the experts as the prejudices of the Prime Minister. Why does not she take this opportunity to refute them?

I am amazed that the deputy leader of the Labour party chooses his opportunity to question me to use it—[Interruption.]

Order.

—chooses to use his opportunity for questioning to attack a civil servant who cannot reply and who has served all Governments with equal integrity. His conclusion on that meeting was highly constructive, as was the meeting itself. There used to be more honour in the House than that.

The Prime Minister's reputation is far too tarnished for her to maintain this haughty stand any longer. Does not she understand that there is a problem with Anglo-German relations and that that problem is the Prime Minister? What we want—and, I believe, what the majority of people want—is an honest statement of the Prime Minister's opinion. Has she the courage to make such a statement to the House and to face cross-examination?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the many speeches and consider the many actions in which we have been staunch allies of Germany in NATO and in which the Germans have been staunch allies of ours in NATO and in the EEC. Germany joined us in stationing cruise and Pershing at a critical time. We could not say that the Opposition supported that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that every other Government in the world regularly make assessments of the British character and of Britain's performance, and that they all admire and respect her quality of leadership much more than they respect the inane posturing of the Leader of the Opposition?

Had this country followed the policies of the Leader of the Opposition on defence, we should never have seen the remarkable changes that we are seeing now.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

As the Prime Minister chose in the exchange of resignation letters to refer to

"the policies we both believe in so deeply",

does not she owe it to the House and the country—she was the person who mentioned the word "honour"—to say whether she repudiates the view that her former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expressed in his resignation letter which was that the proposal by the European Commission for economic and monetary union in the Community would be a disaster? Does she repudiate him, or does she agree with him that it would be a disaster?

The policies on which the former Secretary of State and I agree are the policies that have transformed Britain from the state in which Labour left it and which it would recreate. The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said last week—that my right hon. Friend's views were not those of the British Government. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have known that.

On the resignation letter, my right hon. Friend condemned the move to a single currency. Does Labour now support that?

Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the policies that she has just mentioned which have brought eight years of successive economic growth, improvements in productivity and record levels of employment? Is not it her determination to pursue those policies which will ensure that the British economy is the best counter-balance to any other economy in Europe?

Yes, Sir. Our policies have been very successful. We now have the fastest growth in manufacturing productivity in the G7. In the 1960s and 1970s we had the lowest growth in productivity in the G7. We now have the second largest growth of output in the EEC. In the 1960s and 1970s we had the lowest growth of output in the EEC. We now have the second fastest growth in business investment after Japan. I am delighted to have a chance to say how bad it was in Labour times and how good it is now.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Given the announcement last Friday that the retail prices index has now reached 9.8 per cent., the continuing balance of payments deficit running at over £1 billion a month and the continuation of interest rates at 15 per cent., causing record numbers of bankruptcies, does the Prime Minister agree that the economy is in a mess and that the responsibility for it lies squarely with her and her Government?

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman calls it a mess. We have the highest-ever standard of living, more people in work than ever and the highest standard of investment. In fact, 28 of the 50 top performing European companies are British.

May I say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—

Order. This is the first opportunity that the hon. Lady has had to put a question and I ask her to do it.

May I say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is looking jolly nice today? Does she agree that is is a time of great celebration? As she has observed, it is the end of the cold war. Does she also agree that while we celebrate we should not be complacent about the peace?

I thank my hon. Friend and return her compliment. I said in November 1988 that we had reached the end of the cold war provided that Mr. Gorbachev went on as he has done. That was when I first said it, but others have come rather later.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does the hon. Lady recognise that there are not only splits in her party, but different views in ours? Does she also recognise that they are legitimate differences? Stripped of the hysteria and counter-charges of the past few days, we have to think as a nation about the balance of power, especially in a free, open and democratic Europe. My generation—there are many hon. Members of my generation—should consider the part we played to return the balance of power. Our parents and grandparents did the same. The last three centuries have taught us lessons. Those who did not experience the 1939–45 war or the post-war period should read the history of Europe over the past three centuries. Some of the pro-Europeans should also re-read their history.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those words which I think he has truly spoken. I point out that I said—

He should have been at the seminar. [Interruption.]

Order. I am anxious to call as many hon. Members as possible.

May I point out—because I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree—that when I said in November 1988,

"The cold war is already at an end",

I went on with the words that were very much in keeping with his sentiments:

"Now, that does not mean to say a strong defence is at an end—far from it."

I think that the hon. Gentleman would firmly agree with that: we always have to keep up a strong defence to safeguard peace.

I note what the hon. Gentleman said about learning from history. I was interested to see what Chancellor Kohl said at a press conference today. He said that he understood the concern—especially on the part of the British—whose entire national existence had been at stake in the fight against Hitler. He went on to say that he had not taken my right hon. Friend's comments amiss

"The man has been punished enough."

I think that the hon. Gentleman, Chancellor Kohl and I would very much agree on the wisdom of learning from history.